It's a shame that with all the year-end awards being dished out by critics, awards where groups of individuals do their best to do the cinema world proud by honoring greatness, that one can't be devised to recognize articles that make us all look bad. Case in point: Iain Blair's Wednesday article in Variety about the disconnect between audiences and film critics, particularly where Oscar is concerned. His next article on tap is supposedly entitled "Water's Wet, Sky's Blue, Women Have Secrets." Every now and then some film journalist decides to write such an article, which is basically the same as the last one only with changed titles and tries to remind us how we occasionally don't approve of a film we deem poorly made to be smattered with an embarrassment of riches. Nothing we haven't heard before. Rarely though does one of the first sentences smack of the sort of half-hearted research that makes you instantly discount everything that comes after it. Blair writes:
"Sure, Titanic grabbed a ton of Oscars and racked up the biggest box office in history. But more recent critically acclaimed best picture winners such as Shakespeare in Love, A Beautiful Mind and Chicago did middling to poor business. And Crash and The English Patient simply crashed and, well, burned at the box office."
Really Iain? This is the best you could come up with to support your thesis on the divide between critics, the Academy and the "average American." Maybe Joe the Plumber doesn't follow the box office as closely as the publication that you write for but the first three films you cite all did over $100 million at the box office.